Having only been in the position of a district level Instructional Technology Facilitator for five months, it goes without saying that I have been exposed to an entirely different aspect of the instructional technology field. I moved up from the campus level, as a Campus Instructional Technologist (C.I.T.), which I now know and realize is quite a bit different from a district level position in regards to planning, expecations, and responsibility.
For me the information in chapter three, Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum, which thoroughly examines and explains TF/TL Standard III, was quite informative and eye-opening. I now understand and am able to articulate the area in which, I as a facilitator, am expected to spend the majority of my time and why. “Standard III outlines how school technologists influence teaching and learning from another strategic direction – the curriculum (Williamson & Reddish, 2005, p. 57).
One of the major differences between being at a campus level Facilitator and a district level Facilitator, has been in the area of curriculum development. At the campus level, most of the training documents/materials were already developed for us. We, the CITs would attend a training that walked us through step-by-step on what and how we were to turn around and train our campus staff on. As a CIT, we were not really asked or required to write any of our own curriculum or training materials. However, at the district level, this is quite a different story, and it is in this area I have struggled the most.
Within the first five months of my employment as a district level Facilitator, I have been asked to write curriculum for 6 different Professional Development courses in addition to my many other duties. Let me just say, I was not prepared for this at all. There is just so much that needs to be thought about and addressed when creating curriculum that others will both learn and teach from.
As outlined in TF/TL Standard III, when writing curriculum one must be sure to address and incorporate relevant performance indicators in such a manner that ensures that technology and content standards are used in an integrated approach; focus on learner-centered instruction that promotes higher-order thinking and creativity; and focus on diverse needs of the learner/student.
In addition to this, I also understand that teachers must learn how to use various technology tools and strategies to improve teaching and learning in their classrooms and that training is embedded in instruction and/or professional development, such as the courses I have been asked to create, not isolated from it (Jones, 2007). Now knowing all of this, I have a much clearer understanding of what quality professional development should contain and how it should be structured.
Then, “In harmony with the performance standards for TF/TL III, …Facilitators must use and apply the products and processes that model best practices for teachers when they in turn teach students in their classrooms” (Willams & Redish, 2005, p. 66). After having written three professional development courses now, I feel a little more at ease with the process, but not with the amount of time and effort that is involved.
Chapter three really helped me put my role as a facilitator and that of a technology leader into perspective and understand just how critical our work is. “There is currently a great need to transform teaching, learning, and curricula as described in TF/TL-III. Student technology learning standards likely have been adopted in state and local curricula for years; however, they still are not making a wide-scale impact on teaching and learning. As a result, students’ learning styles and preferences are not being addressed in the classroom, and students are technologically ill prepared for work and post-secondary learning programs. Technology facilitation and leadership are necessary to implement the new NETS*S in the classroom. TF/TL Standard III provides specific performances to support this task” (Williamson & Redish, 2005, p.65).
As I reflect on my role as a technology facilitator and really come to understand why we do what we do, I am reminded of a quote by Marc Prensky in this article titled, "Turning on the Lights", p. 42, which I feel explains what we do and what the end result is that we are trying to accomplish; "Teachers would no longer be the providers of information but instead would be the explainers, the context providers, the meaning makers, and the evaluators of information that kids find on their own. Teaching would still be a noble calling, perhaps even more so than before."
References Jones, E. (2007). Strategies to put instruction ahead of technology. Principal Leadership, 7(6), 35-38.
Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40-45.
Williamson, J & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE’s technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every K-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
For me the information in chapter three, Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum, which thoroughly examines and explains TF/TL Standard III, was quite informative and eye-opening. I now understand and am able to articulate the area in which, I as a facilitator, am expected to spend the majority of my time and why. “Standard III outlines how school technologists influence teaching and learning from another strategic direction – the curriculum (Williamson & Reddish, 2005, p. 57).
One of the major differences between being at a campus level Facilitator and a district level Facilitator, has been in the area of curriculum development. At the campus level, most of the training documents/materials were already developed for us. We, the CITs would attend a training that walked us through step-by-step on what and how we were to turn around and train our campus staff on. As a CIT, we were not really asked or required to write any of our own curriculum or training materials. However, at the district level, this is quite a different story, and it is in this area I have struggled the most.
Within the first five months of my employment as a district level Facilitator, I have been asked to write curriculum for 6 different Professional Development courses in addition to my many other duties. Let me just say, I was not prepared for this at all. There is just so much that needs to be thought about and addressed when creating curriculum that others will both learn and teach from.
As outlined in TF/TL Standard III, when writing curriculum one must be sure to address and incorporate relevant performance indicators in such a manner that ensures that technology and content standards are used in an integrated approach; focus on learner-centered instruction that promotes higher-order thinking and creativity; and focus on diverse needs of the learner/student.
In addition to this, I also understand that teachers must learn how to use various technology tools and strategies to improve teaching and learning in their classrooms and that training is embedded in instruction and/or professional development, such as the courses I have been asked to create, not isolated from it (Jones, 2007). Now knowing all of this, I have a much clearer understanding of what quality professional development should contain and how it should be structured.
Then, “In harmony with the performance standards for TF/TL III, …Facilitators must use and apply the products and processes that model best practices for teachers when they in turn teach students in their classrooms” (Willams & Redish, 2005, p. 66). After having written three professional development courses now, I feel a little more at ease with the process, but not with the amount of time and effort that is involved.
Chapter three really helped me put my role as a facilitator and that of a technology leader into perspective and understand just how critical our work is. “There is currently a great need to transform teaching, learning, and curricula as described in TF/TL-III. Student technology learning standards likely have been adopted in state and local curricula for years; however, they still are not making a wide-scale impact on teaching and learning. As a result, students’ learning styles and preferences are not being addressed in the classroom, and students are technologically ill prepared for work and post-secondary learning programs. Technology facilitation and leadership are necessary to implement the new NETS*S in the classroom. TF/TL Standard III provides specific performances to support this task” (Williamson & Redish, 2005, p.65).
As I reflect on my role as a technology facilitator and really come to understand why we do what we do, I am reminded of a quote by Marc Prensky in this article titled, "Turning on the Lights", p. 42, which I feel explains what we do and what the end result is that we are trying to accomplish; "Teachers would no longer be the providers of information but instead would be the explainers, the context providers, the meaning makers, and the evaluators of information that kids find on their own. Teaching would still be a noble calling, perhaps even more so than before."
References
Jones, E. (2007). Strategies to put instruction ahead of technology. Principal Leadership, 7(6), 35-38.
Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40-45.
Williamson, J & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE’s technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every K-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.